Hood or filter or both?
- Thread starter handsy
- Start date
madcapmagishion
Banned
I too use the lens cap when I am not currently shooting. I leave it off when I am doing one of my frequent Photo Walks, but I keep it in my pocket just in case I get sidetracked by something and will not be shooting for a bit. I also have a UV filter only on my 18-55mm kit lens, only because the filter was given to me by a good friend and it didn't cost me anything. I very rarely use a lens hood either, just occasionally when I am shooting in direct sunlight.
I have to disagree with that too... I meant if you dropped a lens (say theoretically straight down) with the mount side first (ie the opposite side to where your lens hood is), then I doubt any lens hood would absorb any impact
As to the whole lens cap debate - why would you not use it when you're not shooting.
OK, some may say a filter does affect image quality and would not use one ever, but when you're putting your gear away somewhere, surely a lens cap is the least you would do to protect your lens from scratching or other accidental damage?
The whole "people who use a lens cap are amateurs" makes me angry. Some people may have spent a small fortune on their shiny new 18-300mm and don't particularly want to get it damaged. Or like me, I take pride and looking after my kit so that should I want to resell it at a later date, I can add a 'mint' condition to it, as opposed to a 'abused day & night' condition.
Each to their own though I suppose
Ruidoso Bill
Senior Member
I don't think of the hood as lens protection, it is to reduce/eliminate flare from the sun or other bright light sources. I always use lens caps to protect my investments. Clear UV filters are a must for me in many outdoor shooting situations with lots of dust and dirt. Go shoot a rodeo with that $2500 lens, I'll choose to protect mine, I just don't see much if any degradation in lens performance with a good quality clear filter. Shoot an event with two cameras (using both) and it becomes very easy to knock things together while they hang off your neck and shoulder, clear protection makes sense to me.
If you shoot with cheap glass or have an unlimited budget for lens replacement then do whatever you want. I have never damaged a lens from my film days in the late 60's until now. Common sense and protection must work, at least it has for me.
The lens cap/professional comment is pure bunk...
If you shoot with cheap glass or have an unlimited budget for lens replacement then do whatever you want. I have never damaged a lens from my film days in the late 60's until now. Common sense and protection must work, at least it has for me.
The lens cap/professional comment is pure bunk...
Ruidoso Bill
Senior Member
I have to disagree with that too... I meant if you dropped a lens (say theoretically straight down) with the mount side first (ie the opposite side to where your lens hood is), then I doubt any lens hood would absorb any impact
As to the whole lens cap debate - why would you not use it when you're not shooting.
OK, some may say a filter does affect image quality and would not use one ever, but when you're putting your gear away somewhere, surely a lens cap is the least you would do to protect your lens from scratching or other accidental damage?
The whole "people who use a lens cap are amateurs" makes me angry. Some people may have spent a small fortune on their shiny new 18-300mm and don't particularly want to get it damaged. Or like me, I take pride and looking after my kit so that should I want to resell it at a later date, I can add a 'mint' condition to it, as opposed to a 'abused day & night' condition.
Each to their own though I suppose
Love the abused day and night comment, very funny.
I have to disagree with that too... I meant if you dropped a lens (say theoretically straight down) with the mount side first (ie the opposite side to where your lens hood is), then I doubt any lens hood would absorb any impact
I think it's more a matter of physics. Anything that gets in the way of a moving object before it impacts a non-moving object necessarily has to absorb some of that energy. We can argue to what degree it absorbs that energy but it will be more than zero, that much is certain. Kind of like the newer cars and their collapsible front ends. They crinkle up easily and absorb a good deal of the energy. But the real reason I posted this is that I've watched a lens hit the ground with its hood on that hit hood first causing the lens bounce slightly and then to land on its side. The hood acted like a spring and bounced the force back up and over causing the lens to ultimately land on its side. Granted the lens only fell from around 3 ft and was a smaller, lighter lens, but nevertheless, the front optical glass never touched the ground. Whether or not this would make much of a difference with a massively heavy 24-70mm lens, I hope I never have to find out!
And I do agree on the lens cap issue. Any blanket statement that disparages someone base on a preferential issue like whether or not they use a lens cap is simply small minded and flat out wrong. And frankly, I don't see why a cap on or off would make the slightest difference one way or the other. Maybe it's a throw-back to an earlier time when "real men" did "this" or "that" but never the other thing.
There are those that like to "look" and "sound" like pros, so they think that by acting a certain way and using "pro" jargon that it will make them "look" professional. A lot of misconceptions are started by this perception some people have of "pro" photographers and the gear they use, whether it's right or not.
You have a lens cap? Use it! It's to protect your lens when not in use. Got a lens hood? Use it! It's there for a purpose! Why do you think they make them!
You have a lens cap? Use it! It's to protect your lens when not in use. Got a lens hood? Use it! It's there for a purpose! Why do you think they make them!
For the most part I agree with Jack. I do use a hood to help prevent flare, lens caps not so much I shoot wildlife and a lens cap just gets in the way. All lot of the time I only have seconds to get the shot. Fumbling with a lens cap doesn't cut it. So the the only time my "lens" caps get used is when(not very often) I sell a lens.
which is why when you are buying used, find an amatuer that babies their gear, and keeps it pristine, you can always tell gear from full time pro,, equipment are tools, not pristine objects to be pampered.
actually, I was looking at the brassing already on my D800,, and thought whoa,,, maybe I should be less rough with it...nah.
I think a pro not caring for their gear will not be a pro very long. Most pros in trades value their gear as the sorce of their income
Here it is!
Even just 5 high quality filters degraded image quality
Experimenting with Stacks of UV Filters
Even just 5 high quality filters degraded image quality
Experimenting with Stacks of UV Filters
I was just rereading this thread and started thinking about how many hoods I have...about a dozen...not a single one for any of my Nikkors! In fact I don't have a hood for any of the lenses I have period. They all belong to other types of camera bodies that I do not have.
The one exception is my 135/2.8 which has a hood built in.
Frequent contributor to Shutterbug Roger Hicks swears by hoods. He has dropped more cameras then I have held in my hands probably and he has a few stories about shutting them in car doors too. The thing about Hicks though is that he is a Leica man and most of his lenses cost more than our cameras. He needs all the insurance he can get I suppose.
Rick I understand your thinking on filters but what I don't understand is if you feel they degrade the quality of an image then why do you use the CP? It is going to degrade the light coming through a lens even more so than a plain vanilla UV. Are you doing this solely for effect? Than why not use a Haze filter or a Sky filter to impart different degrees of warmness to photos? Or a ND to allow you to open wider in bright light?
The one exception is my 135/2.8 which has a hood built in.
Frequent contributor to Shutterbug Roger Hicks swears by hoods. He has dropped more cameras then I have held in my hands probably and he has a few stories about shutting them in car doors too. The thing about Hicks though is that he is a Leica man and most of his lenses cost more than our cameras. He needs all the insurance he can get I suppose.
Rick I understand your thinking on filters but what I don't understand is if you feel they degrade the quality of an image then why do you use the CP? It is going to degrade the light coming through a lens even more so than a plain vanilla UV. Are you doing this solely for effect? Than why not use a Haze filter or a Sky filter to impart different degrees of warmness to photos? Or a ND to allow you to open wider in bright light?
Last edited:
I do use them, just don't leave them on for protection. Usually for single shots only, then 3 bracketed without any filter for HDR. I've found filter effects combined with HDR to be excessive in many cases. This is one of those to each his own kinda things. I'm also a bit turned off by sales clerks always pushing them as neccessary to unsuspecting customers whenever they buy a lens. They will gladly sell a newbie a $20 filter for a $1k lens.
A bit over the top, I would say. No one in their right mind would ever use 50 filters on a lens........not even 5 stacked filters! So not exactly a scientific based experiment. Just a guy with too much time on his hands. Notice he didn't use just one filter to show the difference between one and none? That fact debunks his theory right there. And yeah....he used a Canon, so no credibility right off the bat! lol
Seems to me this guy has a serious case of the dropsies!
Either that or he's very careless with his gear. He obviously hasn't used the strap his cameras came with. This is not someone I would want to emulate.Jack Roger Hicks has been shooting and writing for like 40 years...like everyday for a living...I wasn't joking when I say he has probably dropped more cameras then even you and me both have ever held...look him up he is highly regarded in the photography literature world.
Roger Hicks (author) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Roger Hicks (author) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia